Challenges and Benefits in Designing and Implementing a Team-Based Research Mentorship Experience in Translational Research

Abstract

Background Translational research seeks to build bridges between research and practice to address public health issues efficiently and effectively. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate a newly formed Institute that provided graduate students and adolescent behavioral health community professionals with a translational research service-learning opportunity through the creation of a community-university mentoring partnership. Goals of the team-based research mentorship approach included: 1) providing students the skills for implementing translational research; 2) providing research opportunities for community agencies to enhance operations and to encourage ongoing research involvement; and 3) developing relationships between university faculty and community agency professionals for further research collaborations. Methods The Institute used the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Mentoring Mosaic to select a diverse group of Community and Academic Mentors. The research mentorship experience of the initial cohort was evaluated based upon the Research Mentorship Conceptual Framework and Self-Assessment Tool. Results As a direct result of the research mentorship, outcomes for the Academic and Community Mentors and Scholars (i.e., those seeking a graduate certificate) included improved working relationships/networking and research experience. Through experiential learning, Scholars also discovered career trajectory clarity, the need for community collaboration in research, opportunities for continuing professional development, a greater understanding of public health competencies and how they align with community-based research, and skill development in best practices for translational research. Conclusion The team mentoring approach is a form of pedagogy that holds promise to enhance translational research and community-based research efforts while developing public health competencies.

Community-University Partnership Characteristics for Translation: Evidence From CDC's Prevention Research Centers

“…Some of the elements that focus on the science of relaying or applying information include: implementation (e.g., how to best apply evidence in a real-word setting) (2); systems thinking (3,4); and dissemination (e.g., the creation or strengthening of an infrastructure to facilitate the distribution of scientific evidence to end-users) (5). Other elements focus on who is involved and/or how they are involved, such as: community engagement (in which communities are included in addressing community problems) (6), democratic engagement i.e., integrating community stakeholders into research as cogenerators of knowledge) (7), the role of "knowledge brokers" (i.e., mediators that facilitate communication between community stakeholders and academic researchers) (8,9), mentoring (e.g., imparting skills to new scientists to effectively engage community stakeholders, and peer-mentoring for skill-building among professionals in academia and community to effectively engage one another) (10) and community-university partnerships (i.e., developing strategic partnerships for the purpose of tackling a community problem through the implementation of research evidence) (11). "…”

Implementing and measuring the impact of a clinical and translational research mentor recognition program

“…Good mentorship has broad effects across the entire research enterprise. It supports the growth of academic research organizations [ 6 , 7 , 10 – 12 ] by improving their investigators’ job satisfaction and retention [ 13 , 14 ] and supports investigators’ responsible conduct of research and research productivity [ 8 , 15 ].…”

“…The lack of specific mentor training or continuing professional development focusing on mentoring skills also contributes to a lack of mentor development that would enable them to take on new mentees [7, 8, 12, 16]. Moreover, senior faculty, like faculty at all levels, often perceive that excellent mentorship is not highly valued, supported, or rewarded within their departments and research universities [3, 6, 7, 10–12, 15, 17]. These barriers are preventing senior faculty from devoting more of their energy towards mentoring the next generation of research investigators.…”

“…Recent research has examined the association between institutional incentives for mentoring and faculty perceptions regarding the benefits of mentoring in order to examine their impact on the time faculty spend mentoring [6, 13]. Examples of incentives include the inclusion of mentoring in a teaching portfolio [18], local and national awards, and papers coauthored with mentees [3, 6]; public recognition and salary effort [6, 15, 16, 18]; and access to additional institutional resources [6], and an incentive structure would be systematic policies and processes in place to fairly and equally award incentives at the department, school or college, or university level. Maisel and colleagues found that incentives such as including mentoring activities in performance evaluation and mentor awards were positively associated with a mentor’s perceptions of the benefits of mentoring as well as their mentoring activity [6].…”

Broadening measures of success: results of a behavioral health translational research training program

“…During the last semester of the program, graduating scholars also attend the conference (cited above) to present findings from their applied research studies. For additional information about the Institute, see the website, http://www.usf.edu/cbcs/cfs/itre/index.aspx [ 19 , 20 ].…”